No, just the one.
In certain situations, yes, the magnetic force can be stronger than the gravitational force. For example, on a small scale such as with magnets or charged particles, magnetic forces can dominate over gravitational forces. However, on a large scale such as with planets or stars, gravitational force is typically much stronger than magnetic force.
Yes. To be more accurate, a magnetic field is caused whenever there are moving electrical charges. Even the magnetic field in a permanent magnet are caused by more electrons moving around their atoms in one direction, than in the other.Yes. To be more accurate, a magnetic field is caused whenever there are moving electrical charges. Even the magnetic field in a permanent magnet are caused by more electrons moving around their atoms in one direction, than in the other.Yes. To be more accurate, a magnetic field is caused whenever there are moving electrical charges. Even the magnetic field in a permanent magnet are caused by more electrons moving around their atoms in one direction, than in the other.Yes. To be more accurate, a magnetic field is caused whenever there are moving electrical charges. Even the magnetic field in a permanent magnet are caused by more electrons moving around their atoms in one direction, than in the other.
The rapid decay theory explains the decrease in the strength of the earth's magnetic field better then the dynamo theory. Although the dynamo theory explains the explains the reversals where the field pointed in the opposite directions better. The rapid decay theory allows for it, but only if there is an event of cataclysmic volcanic and geological activity. The rapid decay theory also explains the magnetic fields on the other planets correctly.
The rapid decay theory explains the decrease in the strength of the earth's magnetic field better then the dynamo theory. Although the dynamo theory explains the explains the reversals where the field pointed in the opposite directions better. The rapid decay theory allows for it, but only if there is an event of cataclysmic volcanic and geological activity. The rapid decay theory also explains the magnetic fields on the other planets correctly.
The question can not be answered. Magnetic fields and electric fields are inter-related, but it's possible for either to be stronger than the other, or for them to have equal strengths.
It is because some of the metallic objects are more magnetic than each other(more iron than each other).
Neither properly describes it. All attractions are forces, and there are only four forces in the known universe: gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic. Magnet attractions are electromagnetic. Both physical forces (that are not gravity) and chemical forces are also classified as electromagnetic forces. So neither physical or chemical properly describes a magnetic force, although classical physics would be more accurate to say than chemical.
Gravity, electric, and magnetic forces are all fundamental forces of nature that act over a distance and follow an inverse square law. They can be attractive or repulsive based on the charges or masses involved. However, gravity is always attractive, while electric and magnetic forces can be either attractive or repulsive.
It isn't
It is a theory which focus on export as the main determination of the economic growth of a region. It does work for young regions but in case of older regions with dynamic inner forces, there are so many inner forces which are much more influential in the economic growth than export.
It is because some of the metallic objects are more magnetic than each other(more iron than each other).
Neither properly describes it. All attractions are forces, and there are only four forces in the known universe: gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic. Magnet attractions are electromagnetic. Both physical forces (that are not gravity) and chemical forces are also classified as electromagnetic forces. So neither physical or chemical properly describes a magnetic force, although classical physics would be more accurate to say than chemical.